New York, New York – June 6: An ice agent is watching hundreds of asylum seekers being processed … more
Crispin Agustin Mendoza is the mayor of Alcozauca in Mexico. He is also a dream builder for Mexicans living today and working in the United States, but who intends to return to Mexico. In his words to the New York Times“I create the homes of their dreams. This means that I am strictly dependent on US economy.” Stop and think about it for a while.
Specifically, he examines Mendoza’s explanation of how he earns money, while thinking of a 3.5% proposed tax on remittances filled with the “big, beautiful” bill. Assuming what is difficult, that banks and other financial institutions could become tax collectors other than financial intermediaries, will it be worth it?
For one, a 3.5 % tax is important. Since it is, the rich, poor producers are inevitable and will try to overcome the tax. In other words, instead of moving their money in the safest possible way, it is not to say that the underground markets will set up to meet the needs (and sometimes to go through those for whom 3.5% is an important, double tax on their profits. And there are more.
Think again the Mayor Mendoza in Alcozauca and what leads his business: Mexicans working in the US, but who are intended to return to Mexico. Think of it alongside the popular narrative of immigrants from the south of the US border to vote in the US and allegedly changing our nation’s makeup. It is more realistic to say that Mexicans are coming to the US to work and in the process boost our economy while paying taxes, everyone with the aim of returning to Mexico. Call remittime tax a tax on the return of Mexicans to Mexico.
Which discovers a tacit truth in the proposed remittance tax. Another popular excuse for maintaining workers from the US southern US from the US has to do with prosperity and other benefits offered by local, state and national governments. The opponents of immigration are prone to to say that the existence of the welfare state makes the influx of workers from Central America a non -original one. The simple proposal of a remittance tax rejects the meaning.
Really, why would Congress propose such a tax unless the money they won and then were transferred from the immigrants were important? As evidenced by over $ 60 billion in remittances in Mexico only in 2023, the primary possession of immigrants from the south of the border is work. Taking into account $ 60 billion again and its excellent impact on Mexico consumption, it stops and thinks how many citizens in Mexico can afford to live there precisely because of the productive nature of their relatives in the United States.
The unknown is whether Republicans willing to impose such a large tax on dozens of billions of remittances, do so, while knowing the consequences. With so many they claim the desire to keep border gaps and limit the influx of a larger number of desperate people from the south, have stopped examining what this tax or more realistically, what this penalty Will the remittances mean to those who do not live today and work in the US?
As Republicans have long observed properly, economic activity is taking place. If Republicans increase the cost of shipping out of the US, they will reduce the cost of US immigration all the time by increasing the relative despair to reach the US is just a comment that one of the toughest taxes in the world is also one of the foolish.
